Saw a stupid bumper sticker today....
- Thread starter Cleveland
- Start date
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Sorry I'm late, but it's been a busy week...
My argument is based upon awareness of a difference. There are only three basic ways to know differences in human beings other than someone proclaiming their difference to the world. Those are sight, hearing, and, believe it or not, smell. If I see you walking down the street, (Don't take this the wrong way) smell you, or hear you, I can pretty much say who you are. Race (sight), geographical region (hearing you speak), and smell (what foods you probably eat on a continual basis) form what my reaction to you is going to be on a sub-conscious level. Society, for right or for wrong, has bombarded me with messages, both overt and covert, over what my reaction should be my towards you as a person. Now, most folks try to overcome this type of stereotyping, and some actually succeed, but I digress from the meat of the 'argument'. This is all about perception, and reaction without knowledge of you as an individual. People do this all the time, and it's quite natural. Now let's suppose you see someone physically challenged, a stranger, walking towards you. Subconsciously, you've already prepared yourself to walk past that person, or help that person if he/she needs it. Perfectly natural, and acceptable. This person has also seen you, and has prepared him/herself as well. Once you form this scenario in your mind, you can substitute race or gender, and you can better see where I'm going. Now picture a stranger who is homosexual. Most folks can't. I know that I can't. My reactions to that person will be based solely on the above criteria of sight, hearing, and smell. I have no other information or knowledge to the fact that this other person is a homosexual. I can only base my reaction to that person on how I perceive them at the moment. As a human being of a certain race, geographical location, and what foods they consume on a regular basis. That's why I said that you can't equate your struggle with the struggles of the past. There is no obvious difference between a homosexual person and anyone else in society until that person tells someone of their orientation.
As for the rest of what was said...
1. Yes, you did tell me of your philosophy, and I'll stick to what I said. The church is not a public venture, and religion is a private matter. If you want a church wedding, form your own church, or find a church that will cater to your needs. Claiming that you have a right to a church wedding is laughable, as the church can, and has, denied even heterosexual weddings. A church wedding is a priveledge.
You do have a right to be with who you love, and if you want a wedding through the state then, by all means, fight for that, and more power to you.
2. Insurance goes to the beneficiary. You decide who you want to get paid upon your death when you start your policy. Hospitals and insurance companies now allow you to list who can, and can not, see you in the event of an emergency, at least here where I'm at. I'm not sure of your region, but it would be a good idea to check out the issue thouroughly before you counter this with the 'not everywhere' blanket.
3. Choice or biology is still being hotly debated, but, if it's a matter of choosing to be homosexual, then I'd seriously think about taking a reality check. If it happens to be bilogical, then perhaps all of society needs to take a reality check...including homosexuals.
4. Adopting a child should be reserved for those who will provide the best environment for the child. This is not a social experiment. The number of children who are mistreated by hetero couples is miniscule at best. For every abused or mistreated child of a hetero couple, there are millions who are not abused or mistreated. There's always another side to the statistical argument. Don't confuse fact with hypothesis, or statistics with truth.
I'm not saying that homosexual couple will abuse children, but the mere fact that a person is in a relationship that will not produce a child due to the *ahem* structure of both parents is daunting at best.
My argument is based upon awareness of a difference. There are only three basic ways to know differences in human beings other than someone proclaiming their difference to the world. Those are sight, hearing, and, believe it or not, smell. If I see you walking down the street, (Don't take this the wrong way) smell you, or hear you, I can pretty much say who you are. Race (sight), geographical region (hearing you speak), and smell (what foods you probably eat on a continual basis) form what my reaction to you is going to be on a sub-conscious level. Society, for right or for wrong, has bombarded me with messages, both overt and covert, over what my reaction should be my towards you as a person. Now, most folks try to overcome this type of stereotyping, and some actually succeed, but I digress from the meat of the 'argument'. This is all about perception, and reaction without knowledge of you as an individual. People do this all the time, and it's quite natural. Now let's suppose you see someone physically challenged, a stranger, walking towards you. Subconsciously, you've already prepared yourself to walk past that person, or help that person if he/she needs it. Perfectly natural, and acceptable. This person has also seen you, and has prepared him/herself as well. Once you form this scenario in your mind, you can substitute race or gender, and you can better see where I'm going. Now picture a stranger who is homosexual. Most folks can't. I know that I can't. My reactions to that person will be based solely on the above criteria of sight, hearing, and smell. I have no other information or knowledge to the fact that this other person is a homosexual. I can only base my reaction to that person on how I perceive them at the moment. As a human being of a certain race, geographical location, and what foods they consume on a regular basis. That's why I said that you can't equate your struggle with the struggles of the past. There is no obvious difference between a homosexual person and anyone else in society until that person tells someone of their orientation.
As for the rest of what was said...
1. Yes, you did tell me of your philosophy, and I'll stick to what I said. The church is not a public venture, and religion is a private matter. If you want a church wedding, form your own church, or find a church that will cater to your needs. Claiming that you have a right to a church wedding is laughable, as the church can, and has, denied even heterosexual weddings. A church wedding is a priveledge.
You do have a right to be with who you love, and if you want a wedding through the state then, by all means, fight for that, and more power to you.
2. Insurance goes to the beneficiary. You decide who you want to get paid upon your death when you start your policy. Hospitals and insurance companies now allow you to list who can, and can not, see you in the event of an emergency, at least here where I'm at. I'm not sure of your region, but it would be a good idea to check out the issue thouroughly before you counter this with the 'not everywhere' blanket.
3. Choice or biology is still being hotly debated, but, if it's a matter of choosing to be homosexual, then I'd seriously think about taking a reality check. If it happens to be bilogical, then perhaps all of society needs to take a reality check...including homosexuals.
4. Adopting a child should be reserved for those who will provide the best environment for the child. This is not a social experiment. The number of children who are mistreated by hetero couples is miniscule at best. For every abused or mistreated child of a hetero couple, there are millions who are not abused or mistreated. There's always another side to the statistical argument. Don't confuse fact with hypothesis, or statistics with truth.
I'm not saying that homosexual couple will abuse children, but the mere fact that a person is in a relationship that will not produce a child due to the *ahem* structure of both parents is daunting at best.